The thing is, even as low as Roland have fallen, unlike most other arranger manufacturers, they haven't forgotten that what perhaps the best of us want is a substitute for a REAL LIVE BAND...

Some others think we want a replacement for a CD, or karaoke system...

For all their faults (and I am willing to point them out as explicitly as any fanboy of another brand) they still stand head and shoulders above the rest in their ability to make instruments that sound LIVE... That litany of great arranger features above that Roland do not have is balanced by the fact that NONE of them (IMO) have anything NEAR as live a sound as the Roland's do.

So where do you place yourself? Features over sound? I have to place myself in the sound category, fully and squarely. Yes, I miss those other features VERY much. But, I confess, none of the others' 'sound' makes me willing to jump ship. I had a friend's PA3Xpro at my house for several weeks. Yes, it was a joy beyond belief being able to lay chord changes down quickly and then solo over the Chord Sequencer. But, apart from the few standout styles and sounds it had, it STILL didn't make me go 'I got to use one of these!' over my G70.

I would LOVE to see any and all of those missing featured in a modern Roland. Sadly, looking at the company's current direction, I doubt any of them ever will... But I guess, despite watching over the demise of my favorite arranger line, I have what was the zenith of Roland's arranger offerings... the G70. And so far. no matter what the others offer, it still beats them handily at sounding like a LIVE rhythm section. In the end, I guess that's all you can ask for... NOOOOOOOO!

I can ASK for a lot more! I just feel it's unlikely I'll get it!

So, after extensively A/B'ing the two best contenders for 'best live sounding arranger', despite the Korg's impressive list of 21st century features, I guess I remain squarely in Roland's camp. Doesn't mean I wouldn't LIKE some of the PA3X's features on a new Roland, but if they NEVER bring out something FAR more advanced to the G70, so far, no-one else has brought out anything categorically, undeniably superior. That is, if you are shooting for that 'live band' substitute.

There's a reason I have TWO G70's... I have a nasty feeling I fell in love with what MIGHT be Roland's greatest hurrah, and no other arranger manufacturer seems to be the slightest bit interested in what PRO'S (rather than 'home players') want in the way of a basic sound. I guess that's not the worst thing to happen to a guy! But I still feel betrayed by Roland. There are so many logical extensions to the best they produced, so many features from other arrangers that could ONLY improve and extend the legacy... but Roland seem determined to do this 'one step forward, two steps back' dance they have done for years in the Arranger Division.

If they ever woke up and took a long hard look around. my God! What an arranger they could make..! Take the BEST of what the G70/E80 had to offer, add the basic features of their competitors, and keep the live sound and styles that the pro finds easy to play along with, who could stand against them? From playing most of their competitors' arrangers against my G70, I would say none...

But will Roland find the strength and stamina to do this..? Sadly, from all evidence they have shown from the last five years or so, it appears not.

What a waste.

I suppose many of us could be in the same position if Korg and Yamaha also stopped top range arranger production.

And, in all seriousness, I would be very content staying with my Tyros4, and with what I feel is Yamaha's best TOTL to date.

Is it perfect? Nope, but pretty darn close, in my opinion, and much like those who fell in love with the G-70, I am more than happy with my choice of arranger.

As it has been said many times on SZ, "if it meets your specific needs, who cares how old it is, or, who makes it."

And, as much as I tease you, Fran, about your "old" G-70, I do admire you for the fact that you have found, and stuck with, the instrument that best meets your needs.

I honestly would be very surprised to see another TOTL arranger from Roland, but, I suppose anything is possible.

Ian

I hear you Fran, and agree with a lot of it, but nothing sounds more "live" than Audya, if that were the sole factor to consider. Which it isn't.
DonM

You ARE kidding aren't you????

Don't forget you are talking here to a former G70 owner (who gigged with it extensively as well) and tweaked all the styles, and was running expansion cards, etc etc ....

I have direct first hand experience with the G70, the Yammies and the Korgs...The Roland is reasonable, Yamaha very ordinary, but the Korgs and Ketrons stand out a country mile!!!

You REALLY have to take of your rosy, antiquated OS, dinky sounding Roland glasses....

If Roland thought there was a market for an 'uber-G70' why would they not have introduced it by now? I think most of us know the answer to that one. There's obviously more profit in their other lines, hence the continuation of those.

The old saying goes: if there's no market, then create one. All very well, but the demographic to grab is the younger crowd who won't touch an arranger with a 10' pole because of the old fart connotation. And I'm sure that if Roland had figured out how to capture the youngsters, they would also have done that by now. Far easier to sell them a Fantom, etc., so why bother.

One thing's for sure. None of us knows what's up Roland's sleeve. Question is, how long can you hang on?

So love that G70 till you check out.

Dennis, you do know the title of this post....right?

These are not my comments, but a quote from Diki...so don't get in my face..without a just cause

BTW: I do agree more with Diki, than you..

Most of what Diki said..I find true too..

Don, the Audya does have some great drums , guitar, bass,etc....ease of use is a determining factor that the G70 rules..

Dennis your opinion and mine will have to differ when comparing Korg and Roland best offerings..

I wasn't getting in your face tbh, merely expressing incredulity at your statement - no face-getting there - and the comments I referenced are directly yours re live-sound, NOT Dikis...re-read your post...

Differing opinion is fine....I have no probs with that, do you? Seems you might if based on your many responses over the years whenever someone writes a contrary view about Rolands to the one you hold...

Mebbe not......but that's how it seems...

Fran, even though your subject says Diki, it seems it's from you. We forget about your subject line.

Anyway...

TO DIKI: (I think I remember his post above!)

IMO, for live sound, the best is Audya. If they would lower their price and act like a normal marketing department, nobody would compare. Of course, I've said that a hundred times on here.

Roland is good, Korg is good. Audya is God.

Fran is this a comment Diki made on another forum or is it something that has been dug up from the past?

I cant tell which part of the post is Diki's dialogue and which part(s) are yours?

Nick

Nick, none of the original post were my words...I took this from Roland Arranger club..

Bill it was a current post from Diki today.....I do share his thoughts on many of his comments though..

Dennis , let me clarify again,,,the initial post is 100 percent Diki..I did not utter one word...followed by your comments...so you are totally wrong...again

Don, I wanted to mention...the Audya drums , bass and guitar excell, because they are audio loops played by professionals....if we compare the so called "midi" drums , bass, and guitar..they are average at best, and personally I think Roland drums outshine both the Ketron and Korg in this department...

I agree with you Nick, I can't make out what's what and who's who's , quote marks need to be added to Diki's works, let's face it anyone can quote the dead and then blame them.

Geez, all over a set of live drums??

Now let me see what did Winston Churchill say??? What can't speak can't lie...

Nick what are you playing now.

Tony

Here is one of Winston Chruchills.

" You can always count on Americans to do the right thing—after they’ve tried everything else. "

Definitely not my words!!! wouldn't dare

And here is one from Englishman Oscar Wilde

"To disagree with three-fourths of the British public is one of the first requisites of sanity."

Wow Nigel,

We are digging deep now, these are way before my time...hee suppose I started it, been in the knife drawer this morning.

Churchill did some absolute stormers, he loved the Yanks really, only because he needed them.


Tony

No re-READ your post and the bit I quoted...THAT is your personal comment...

I mean which part of this is not yours...even the IMO!!!

That litany of great arranger features above that Roland do not have is balanced by the fact that NONE of them (IMO) have anything NEAR as live a sound as the Roland's do.

And THAT'S what I was commenting on (that specific line as clearly indicated in my op) so perhaps it is YOU who is wrong again...

Dennis as Fran stated this line plus ALL the rest is entirely Diki's statement from another forum, not Fran's. You are welcome to comment on it but don't attribute the wording of it to anyone other than Diki the author. Here is the the original post including the line you said was Fran's http://www.roland-arranger.com/smf/index.php?topic=1732.msg9909#msg9909

Though it would have clearer this was the case if Fran had just posted the link rather than cut and paste the posting.

If you want to comment on the original posting address your comments to Diki. He is able to post on this thread if he wishes to.

OMG! Mine is better than yours (again).

Just to get this topic back on point....

Live Sound is only ONE of many criteria to measure the value of a keyboard to a performer. You have to weigh all the other attributes of the board such as realism of sounds, style support, ease of use, ergonomics, hardware support, reliability, extensibility, playability, expansion capability, etc. This is essential, especially for this price range of $3,000 - $4,000.00 investment.

If you are going to commit to a keyboard, don't you want to ensure it will satisfy the "BULK" of your attributes for a long time so you can recoup your investment? Having a keyboard that is not supported or having a very small public domain support network is a big negative to one of those key attributes. Some of those attributes can be tweaked, enhanced, etc. to add greater range of acceptability.

Take the "Live" vs "CD" issue. You can adjust a keyboard's presence by +/-20% by adjusting EQ, changing instruments, compression, etc. That can overcome any shortcomings.

What about voices, will a keyboard allow you to adjust the quality or realism of voices +20% to adjust for poor realism by adding 3rd party samples, adjusting voice parameters like ADSR, resonance, DNC, Mega, etc?

The point I'm trying to make is; you have to measure the board as a whole; from the viability of the Manufacturer to the support network, to the live sound and then balance that with your pocketbook and your needs as a musician. This is how you should be purchasing a keyboard.

So what ever happened to diki? Never heard of him again?

Diki is, unfortunately, one of the ones who, for a variety of reasons, isn't here.

"Warts" and all, he is certainly missed.


R.

Don has used every brand I can think of. When I need an arranger, I use a 15 year old Solton MS-60. Frank is uber-loyal to his G-70. Gary is a Yamaha man.

What is best is what works for you. Nothing else matters.
I don't like anything Yamaha and was unimpressed with my G70.

SO WHAT ?

Play what you love, and love what you play.

Don't sweat the "small stuff".

Think about those who are gone from here. Diki, Chas and others were among those I valued...still do, actually.

What to play is all a friendly disagreement, in my mind.
It's really not worth getting cranked up about, because that's when it "hits the fan".

Fran, I appreciate the post from Diki and the gentlemanly way you have stated your position. I'm a two keyboard person, too.

It's been better around here. Let's all continue to appreciate each other.


R.

Normally, I wouldn't chime in here, but I feel I have to clarify what has been said... First of all, Fran really needed to use the 'quotes' system you have here to make it obvious that those weren't his words at all. Secondly, Fran doesn't quote the previous post of mine which puts the whole thing in context, so I will go ahead and quote it here. Perhaps, once you see this, a more balanced viewpoint becomes articulated, and those that feel that this is yet one more 'mine is better than yours' (mind you, what ELSE gets talked about here, primarily? LOL) might realize that that was the LAST thing I intended.



Now, once you have read that, the post quoted by Fran perhaps takes on a different tenor...

My intention has NEVER been to say 'mine is better than yours'. Just a simple look at the feature lists from even the G70's contemporaries, let alone those that have come out in the last ten years (yes, it is getting up there!) make that a patently obvious fanboy comment. All I have ever done is to point out my priorities... Sound above all, followed by ease of live use and versatility at not only a pure arranger usage, but how well it works as a LIVE BAND keyboard (unparalleled, IMO, and I've played them ALL) and it's SMF playback capabilities and ease of use.

Taken with that much more limited (although I would prefer to say 'expanded'!) set of priorities, I feel happy with my decision to remain with this ancient behemoth (to save Ian from pointing it out again! - good to see that stuck needle hasn't worn out, LOL). The majority of my work these days is with live bands, but I still prefer to use ONE piece of gear to cover all situations. You never know when you turn up at the gig if the drummer had an accident (fell in a bottle of tequila agan!), or the bassist got double-booked. Best of luck with your state of the art WS covering THAT!

But I just hope that, once you see this previous post, you realize that, as I have always done, I am willing (unlike so many here) to heap as much criticism on my keyboard as praise, to recognize its weaknesses as well as its strengths, and to try to work towards those weaknesses being removed by improved products from this or any OTHER manufacturer. I'm sorry, but if this forum had a lot more of that, and a lot less of the 'mine is better than yours' which STILL permeates this forum, I would still involve myself here.

I don't normally get involved with this kind of discussion, but I believe Roland have recognized the bulk of arranger players are ex home organists - well, they have a range of home organs so why sell against themself? Also Roland are very good at quitting whilst they are ahead. They were very competetive with Hammond style keyboards in the VK7, untill Hammond released the XK3 (which was the best at the time) Roland and Korg quickly wound up R&D in that area...the buyers are too well educated and there are too few of them...just like arranger keyboard buyers.

I don't see Roland ever jumping in unless arrangers start to regain street cred among anyone under 62 years of age. Interestingly One of our retailers told us that a member of Staff at Roland recomended his particular customer buy an Audya as they are the best arranger currently available (his words not mine) which indicates to me there are no plans in the near future for totl arrangers from Roland.

Roland know what they are good at; Studio quality equipment for the production of recorded music, stage Piano's for live use and synth/workstations for home studios and occasional gigs.

Of course - I don't know this for certain...just a 'hunch'

Ahhh...NOW I get it...that line was NOT actually Fran saying IMO, it was Diki...right...Thanks much!!

D

After reading Nigels post, I stand corrected...I did attribute that line to you. The IMO tricked me and tbh, I was too lazy to bother reading the whole thing, so came up with 5 and not 4...Dikis posts tend to be a bit long-winded and convoluted on occasion.

My apologies Fran.

D

Dennis...no problem..

Really nice to see you peek in to SZ again Diki.
Cheers
GJ